840C and MHDT Havana

Thanks for that feedback Rad21. What I have been reading up about quite a lot is the burn-in factor for the 840C....a lot of guys even saying they never believed in burn in until the 840C. From my understanding, quite a few people got the 840C new from shops (online or bricks and mortar) and only have 20-30 hours to form an opinion.

There seems to be quite a lot of consensus on the Cambridge requiring a good 150-200hrs of run in, after which the initial dryness/glare/sheen subsides. Has anyone had this experience? Did you find, as some have reported, that the brightness and harshness is reduces substantially (but the detail and dynamics remain)?

Cheers
X

I bought an 840C about a year ago. There is certainly a burn in, but I'm not sure it takes all of 200 hrs. Its difficult for me to say exactly how long it took for the 840C, because I replaced my pre after I had less than 100 hrs on the 840C, so there was some burn in required for that piece too. As far as the "dryness/glare/sheen" I think sheen is probably apt. As far as dryness, I suppose it could be in the wrong system, but I think the 840C is capable of remarkable sweetness with the right source material. Glare as a descriptor would be way off base in my opinion. This is a smooth sounding piece, not digital sounding as I think of digital sounding, but not analog sounding either. My 840C replaced a NOS filterless dac (Audio Mirror) that I liked quite a bit. I would say the 840C betters the AM in most areas although it does not match the dynamics and bass of the AM. The 840C is a good match for you if you are looking for detail, imaging, and lack of congestion on complex passages. If presentation of tympani makes or breaks your assessment, then the 840C may not be for you.

Thanks for that comparison. When you refer to "sheen" is it something which bothers you, specifically for long-term listening (e.g., does it induce fatigue)? The word I see used to describe that sheen is that music comes across as somewhat artificial, though still very smooth.

Xenithon,

The "sheen" with the 840C is something that is just there that I don't hear in live music. It would seem this should be very objectionable, but I don't find it so. Apparently the virtues of the 840C are strong enough that I am willing to overlook this oddity. One of those virtues is a complete absence of listener fatigue. My current set up with the 840C permits(invites) me to listen for longer periods than my schedule allows. There is less fatigue than with the NOS filterless AM DAC I used previously. As you can see, I like this player. I'm in no hurry to replace it, and when I do, it will likely be with a player costing significantly more than the 840C.

I recently tried the 840C as I was attracted to the idea of a combined CD/DAC. My current CD player is a Classe CDP 10. The 840C did seem to me to have high end issues. It just seemed dis-jointed in the high end and I did find it tiring. I used both Apple lossless and my CDP 10 digital output as sources to the 840c digital inputs. Given your description of sensitivity to high end brightness/glare I think you are correct to be cautious about the 840c. I did not think that a tube amp would bring the high end together, although I did not try that. I did try different cables, but the high end never did gel for me, even with pretty laid back cables. Incidently, I stayed away from the Benchmark DAC 1 for the same reasons. I ended up with a Musical Fidelity A3.24 - a few years old but a much smoother high end for me. Running iTunes through a HP Laptop to the DAC the result is very close to the CDP 10 and may be slightly more dynamic. Although I have not tried the Havana, my guess would be that the A3.24 is probably somewhere between it and the 840c in the high frequencies. As always this depends so much on personal preference. FYI - Downstream I have a Classe CP-65, Levinson 432 and Sonus Faber Cremona all with Transparent Ultra Cables.